brand logo

Was President R. Premadasa’s ‘One Million Homes’ programme a success?

14 Oct 2022

  • International activists and researchers discuss access to housing in Sri Lanka 
BY Sumudu Chamara As the world population increases rapidly, the need for proper housing access is becoming a pressing concern for many communities. However, despite this being a universal need, not everyone has equitable access to housing, and not every State has been able to ensure it. Many social, economic, and political reasons have aggravated this inequality. In this context, it is important that access to proper housing is identified as a basic right, in order to guide legal, policy, and social reforms to uphold this right. Activists and researchers from several Asian countries concurred with this stance during a recent discussion titled “The Future is Public: Housing is a Basic Right”, which was organised by the Working People’s Coalition, the Habitat International Coalition, and the Asia Europe People’s Forum. It focused on access to housing and lands in the Asian continent, and in addition to Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Hong Kong, China, and Pakistan were also represented by activists and researchers who spoke of land and housing-related challenges in their respective countries.  The ‘One Million Houses’ programme In the case of Sri Lanka, the “One Million Houses” programme was taken as a case study to discuss how policies should be formed or reformed, and how practical aspects of project implementation should receive more attention when planning projects to provide housing.  Representing Sri Lanka, Colombo Urban Lab Researcher Meghal Perera opined that the One Million Houses programme, which commenced in the 1980s, is perhaps the last time that Sri Lanka did something that treated the poor with respect and dignity. She said that the country can learn a lot from that programme, even though it has, in a way, abandoned the lessons it learned from that programme.  Explaining the nature and background of the said programme, she added: “The project was essentially the brainchild of Ranasinghe Premadasa, who, at the time of the project’s commencement, served as the Prime Minister and also the Minister in charge of Housing. The interesting thing about Premadasa was that he was born in a place called Keselwatta, a low-income settlement in Central Colombo. Therefore, housing was very important to him, and was a cause that was really close to his heart that he frequently talked about during his campaigns. But, at the same time, he was a part of the United National Party (UNP), which, when it came to power in 1977, set about instituting the re-liberalisation of the country and opening up the economy.”  She opined that this programme led to housing being framed as an issue of development, rather than an issue of justice or equity. Even the institutions that were formed with regard to housing, such as the National Housing Development Authority (NHDA), she noted, were considered development organisations. Describing the reasons that made the One Million Houses programme significant among housing projects, she said that in the context of this programme, the State assumed the role of an enabler rather than that of a provider of housing.  “The State, instead of directly constructing houses and handing them over to the public, used an approach called aided self-help, which was not as popular at the time as it is now. The State issued small loans to people to upgrade their houses or construct new ones. It was characterised by this ethos of minimum intervention but maximum support. The idea behind doing so was that the people have been building their own houses for centuries and that they just needed a bit of help to keep doing that.  “This worked very well with the neo-liberal discourse at the time, which also wanted to curtail the involvement of the State. But this also reflected the fact that the State simply did not have sufficient funds to provide one million houses, especially to construct new houses. In this case, it was a way of balancing budgetary concerns as well.  “Another reason why I think that we can learn from this programme is the attitude of the State and the planners towards the poor. What we see here is a kind of respect for the poor and their abilities and capacities, or, the trust that if they are given some resources and guidance, they will be able to understand their own needs and respond to their housing needs in a better way.” Innovative, public-friendly approaches During her speech, Perera pointed out a number of innovative approaches that had been employed during the One Million Houses programme and which can be applied even in today’s context. According to her, one of the progressive qualities of the One Million Houses programme was that it supported participatory planning, which allowed the people to also weigh in on decisions that have an impact on their houses and communities.  “First of all, the State allowed the people to design their own houses. There are stories of how every single household in this programme was given a file about the loans that they could obtain. They were also given a square rule paper for them to design their own houses in the way they wanted. Secondly, there were community-building guidelines and rules specific to particular low-income settlements.  “In this context, instead of imposing a bunch of rules from the top level aimed at creating homogenous neighbourhoods, this programme called for conversations and workshops with the community where women were able to talk about matters such as smoke coming into their kitchens, how they get rid of wastewater, and safety issues, among other concerns. When planners talked about it, they often said that they had to unlearn what they knew when embarking on this process.  “For example, in one settlement, planners suggested that wider roads be built, so that fire trucks could travel through easily, and that that would be in line with the sort of urban guidelines that existed at the time. But the community disagreed, adding that when there is a fire, fire trucks never come, and that this was just a waste of space which they could use to build a house. They said they just needed a road wide enough to carry a coffin. That also reflects the priorities in Sri Lanka at the time.”  Highlighting these participatory planning approaches, she said that they are underpinned by an ethos of trust and respect.  “Another key element of this planning process was Community Development Councils. Each urban settlement had their own elected Community Development Council, and these units engaged with housing institutions, administered loans, and took part in consultations and participatory planning processes. They were also given community contracts, where they themselves took on contracts for activities such as building a well or upgrading a toilet. In that sense, the community itself was invested in their own development and upgrading their own infrastructure.” Another key part of the One Million Houses programme, according to Perera, is guiding the people to invest their own resources in their housing development projects, which was dependent on whether the people had secured tenure. Land re-regularisation, she said, was a key component in the State’s agenda, which led to consultations with the public and the granting of leasehold tenures of 30-40 years. Lessons and criticisms Perera noted that there was, however, a lot of criticism and issues surrounding the One Million Houses programme. One significant criticism, she said, was the claim that this programme was successful because Premadasa was willing to do whatever was necessary to ensure the programme’s success. Other criticisms and issues include delays in loans being disbursed, excessive bureaucracy, Community Development Councils often being politicised and reflecting community power relations, and questions of whether one million houses were ever built. “I think that the saddest thing is that despite having learned all these lessons including the importance of participatory planning approaches, the State today has forgotten all these lessons,” she opined. In addition, referring to the post-war urban regeneration programme, she said: “This was initiated after the end of the war in 2010, through which 75,000 families, many of whom had upgraded their houses under the One Million Houses programme and had access to electricity, were classed as illegal squatters despite the fact that they had deeds. They were moved to high-rise apartments, often with military force. In this context, housing is being seen as a kind of disciplining tactic rather than something that can empower people. Instead of trusting communities, they are viewed with contempt and suspicion.” Perera pointed out the key takeaways from the abovementioned housing projects, which she said could be employed in the future. One of them is ensuring secure tenure for the urban poor. She added that prioritising equitable housing, rather than thinking of housing as developmental activities, is also necessary because otherwise, housing becomes a mere matter of maximising land use.  The second takeaway is identifying the potential of community and grassroots-level participation in planning. In this regard, she said that the country always tries to challenge the discourses on underserved nature or illegality concerning housing, and unpack what is meant by those terms in the context of housing.  During the discussion, activists and researchers from other countries emphasised the importance of building alliances with people and empowering them to demand housing as a basic human right. In addition, it was noted that in this endeavour, working with grassroots-level activists and communities, State agencies, policymakers, and experts is necessary. However, each country would have to employ their own methods that match its country’s situation in order to overcome these challenges. At the same time, access to housing for communities such as informal sector workers should receive more attention, according to some activists and researchers that spoke during the discussion.  


More News..